> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > Hit a segfault about 50MB into a 100MB mp3 tarball download. Noticed
> > the segfault was in mod_include. WTF?
>
> =-) Believe it or not, that actually *should* have worked. It'd be slow
> as hell with way-high CPU utilization as mod_include inspects every one of
> those 100 million bytes, of course. But assuming you don't have
> accidentally have a "<!--#" in your tarball, it should have worked
> (eventually
That's true. It's easy to reproduce. Just server parse "My Name Is" :-)
I noticed another thing I did intend to look into. If I canceled the download quickly
(before the
segfault), we keep trying to pump bytes to the network even though the connection was
dead. Not
checking a return code properly somewhere in the filter chain.
Bill
